forge-pr

# Forge PR Writing Write PR descriptions that fellow devs actually want to read. The writing guidance below is forge-agnostic — only the `gh` commands in the "Updating existing PRs" section are GitHub-specific today. Bitbucket support is tracked in [srid/agency#10](https://github.com/srid/agency/issues/10). ## Anti-patterns (what LLMs typically produce) - Flat bullet lists of every file changed - Implementation-detail dumps ("added `foo` parameter to `bar` function") - Generic titles like "Update configuration" or "Fix bug in module" - "## Changes" / "## Testing" / "## Summary" boilerplate headers - Restating the diff in English - Wall of prose for content that's _actually_ a list, comparison, or flow — five features described in one sentence, two before/after fixes blended into a paragraph, an architecture seam explained in words instead of drawn ## What to write instead **Title**: Short, specific, interesting. Convey _what changed from a user/dev perspective_, not which files were touched. Use imperative mood. Under 70 chars. **Body**: Open with a paragraph. Structure: 1. **Opening paragraph** — What this PR does and _why_, in 2-3 sentences. Bold the key behavioral change. If there's a motivating problem, state it directly. 2. **Details** — paragraph(s), bullet list, table, or fenced diagram, whichever fits the shape of the content (see [Use structure when content is structured](#use-structure-when-content-is-structured) below). Only include if the approach is non-obvious, has trade-offs worth calling out, or has discrete moving parts that benefit from being shown rather than described. Use _italics_ for subtle points; keep it high-level. 3. **Anything notable** — Breaking changes, migration steps, or things reviewers should pay attention to. Only if applicable. Use `> blockquote` for callouts. ## Use structure when content is structured Narrative is the right tool for the opening "what changed and why" paragraph and for asides — but the moment you find yourself writing _"three loaders"_, _"two refinements landed"_, or _"the data passes through X then Y then Z"_, that's structure asking to be made visible. A comma-separated list of five features in prose is harder to scan than five bullets; a table beats a paragraph that says "previously Foo did X, now it does Y, and Bar previously did Z, now it does W." Reach for these when they earn their keep: - **Bullet lists** — discrete features, keyboard shortcuts, refinements, anything that isn't a narrative - **Tables** — before/after fixes, per-variant comparisons (e.g. loader → format → vendor), trade-off matrices - **Fenced ASCII or mermaid diagrams** — data flow, architecture seams, anything with shape that's easier to draw than describe - **`###` subheaders** — break long bodies into navigable sections (still avoid generic `## Summary` / `## Changes`) The rule is _use structure when content is structured_, not _always add structure_. A small PR with one paragraph of motivation is fine; don't reach for a table just to look thorough. ## Style rules - Write for a dev skimming their PR feed — they should get the gist in 5 seconds - **Bold** the most important phrase in each paragraph - _Italics_ for nuance, caveats, secondary points - Bullet lists, tables, and fenced diagrams are encouraged when the content is genuinely structured (see [Use structure when content is structured](#use-structure-when-content-is-structured)). Don't list the diff file-by-file or restate prose as a bulleted dump. - `###` subheaders are fine to break up long bodies; skip generic `## Summary` / `## Changes` headers - No filler: "This PR...", "In this change...", "As part of..." — start with the substance - Link to issues/discussions where relevant (`Closes #123`, `See #456`) - If the PR is trivial (typo fix, version bump), a one-liner body is fine ## Attribution footer End every PR body with a one-line italic footer naming: - the **invoking workflow** (the slash-command that drove this PR — e.g. `/do`), linked to its source repo (`https://github.com/srid/agency`), - the **agent** (the harness identity — e.g. `Claude Code`, `Codex`, `opencode`), and - the **model** (the specific model id you are running on — e.g. `claude-opus-4-7`, `gpt-5-codex`). Reviewers should be able to tell at a glance what produced the diff: > _Generated by [`/do`](https://github.com/srid/agency) on Claude Code (model `claude-opus-4-7`)._ Use the values that are actually executing this run — do not guess or fabricate. If you genuinely cannot identify one of agent/model, write `unknown` rather than omitting the footer. If the PR is being written without an invoking workflow (forge-pr loaded directly, no `/`-command), drop the workflow phrase and lead with `_Generated by Claude Code (model `claude-opus-4-7`)._`. When updating an existing PR (see [Updating existing PRs](#updating-existing-prs)) and the current run's agent or model differs from what's already in the body, **edit the existing footer in place** rather than appending a second one. ## Try it locally If the repo is a **GitHub** Nix flake and the PR branch contains a buildable output (package, NixOS config, etc.), include a "Try it locally" section at the end of the body. Use the GitHub owner/repo and branch name to construct the command, and put it in a **fenced `sh` code block** (not inline backticks) so GitHub renders a copy button and the command doesn't line-wrap awkwardly: ```` ### Try it locally ```sh nix run github:<owner>/<repo>/<branch> ``` ```` Adjust the command as needed — `nix build` for non-runnable outputs, add `#<output>` if the default package isn't the relevant one. Omit this section entirely if the change isn't meaningfully testable via `nix run/build` (e.g., CI-only changes, documentation, non-Nix repos, or non-GitHub forges where flake refs would be awkward). ## Passing the body to `gh` safely **MANDATORY**: Always pass `--body` to `gh pr create` / `gh pr edit` / `gh pr comment` via a **single-quoted heredoc** so backticks, `$`, and `!` survive unescaped. Double-quoted `--body "..."` triggers shell command substitution on backticks, and escaping them with `\`` produces literal backslashes in the rendered PR (breaking code fences — see [juspay/kolu#402](https://github.com/juspay/kolu/pull/402)). ```sh gh pr create --draft --title "..." --body "$(cat <<'EOF' ...body with ```sh fenced blocks``` intact... EOF )" ``` The `'EOF'` (quoted delimiter) is load-bearing — it disables interpolation inside the heredoc. Never write backticks in the body as `\``. ## Updating existing PRs When the user pushes further changes to an already-PR'd branch: 1. Check if the PR title/description still accurately reflects the full scope 2. If new commits meaningfully change what the PR does, update the title and/or body via the forge's edit command (`gh pr edit` on GitHub) 3. Don't rewrite from scratch — amend the existing description to cover new ground 4. Add a brief note about what changed if the scope expanded significantly ## Examples ### Bad (typical LLM output) ``` Title: Update NixOS configuration and add new service ## Summary - Added `kolu` service configuration - Updated `flake.lock` - Modified port from 8080 to 8090 - Added health check endpoint - Updated README ## Testing - Tested locally ``` ### Good (small change — narrative is enough) ``` Title: Add kolu service with health monitoring **Kolu now runs as a standalone NixOS service** with its own systemd unit and a dedicated health-check endpoint. Previously it was bolted onto the main app process, which made restarts disruptive. The service binds to port 8090 to avoid clashing with the dev server. *Health checks hit `/healthz` every 30s — systemd restarts the service on three consecutive failures.* ``` ### Good (richer change — structure earns its keep) When the change has a flow, several discrete features, and a couple of before/after refinements, _show_ those instead of writing them out as prose: ```` Title: Export agent session as a self-contained HTML file **Kolu can now export the active agent session as a portable, self-contained HTML file** — Claude Code, OpenCode, or Codex, no matter which one is running. The server reads the on-disk transcript, normalizes it through a unified vendor-opaque IR, and ships back one HTML document the browser opens in a new tab. ### How it fits together ``` Claude JSONL ─┐ OpenCode SQLite ─┼─▶ loader ─▶ TranscriptEvent[] ─▶ renderer ─▶ HTML Codex rollout ─┘ (discriminated union) ``` The IR (`Transcript` in `anyagent/schemas`) is the key seam. The renderer dispatches **only** on `event.kind` — never on `agentKind`. _Adding a fourth integration is one new loader plus one `match` arm._ ### What you get in the exported page - **Header pills** — agent name, model, context-token count, PR link - **Hide tools** — collapses tool-call cards for narrative reading - **Theme** — cycles auto → light → dark - **<kbd>j</kbd>/<kbd>k</kbd> nav** — jump between user prompts - **Per-event icons** — person, robot, brain, wrench ### Refinements during review | What was off | Fix | | --- | --- | | Claude loader threw `ENOENT` for new sessions; OpenCode/Codex returned `null` | All three loaders return `Transcript \| null` uniformly | | OpenCode loader did per-message N+1 SQLite fetches | Collapsed into one ordered `LEFT JOIN` (~501 statements → 1) | > _No streaming, by design — end-of-session export reads the whole > transcript in one pass._ ```` The flow diagram replaces a paragraph that would have to enumerate "Claude JSONL, OpenCode SQLite, Codex rollout — all converge on a single loader interface...". The bullet list replaces a comma-jammed sentence. The table replaces "Two refinements landed: first, the Claude loader used to throw...; second, the OpenCode loader collapsed...". Each structural element is doing work prose couldn't do as cleanly.